The issue of illegal immigration into India from Bangladesh has been a politically sensitive one and has sparked demands to fence the porous India-Bangladesh border (IBB). Given its implications for national security, the question of fencing has come up before various judicial forums from time to time, including the Supreme Court and more recently, the Calcutta High Court.Here’s what to know about what the two courts have said on the issue recently and the timeline of the proceedings.In December 2023, a five-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench was hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which granted citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966. The top court had sought to know from the Centre the status of the border fencing and the steps it intended to take to complete it, and the estimated timelines for completion.The reply affidavit by the then Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla said that West Bengal shares about 2,216.7 km of border with Bangladesh, of which 78% border of feasible length is fenced. A feasible length of 435.504 km remained to be covered by fence, he said, adding that about 286.35 km out of this is pending due to land acquisition.Also read | The new Dhaka is not interested in performative anti-India posturingBhalla added that the “West Bengal Government follows a far slower, more complex Direct Land Purchase Policy even for national security projects such as border fencing. Due to the non-cooperation from State Government regarding resolving various issues of Land Acquisition, considerable delays have occurred in acquiring the necessary land, thereby impeding the timely completion of fencing in West Bengal along Indo Bangladesh border which is a vital national security project.”The official said “the fence work (on the entire India-Bangladesh border) is likely to be completed in three (03) years’ time (after availability of encumbrance free site) and the Technological Solutions are expected to be put in place in two (02) years’ time”.Before the Calcutta High CourtThe matter reached the Calcutta High Court in the form of a PIL petition by former Deputy Chief of Army Staff, Subrata Saha.Story continues below this adHe highlighted the issue of unfenced border with Bangladesh, passing through the nine West Bengal districts of North 24 Parganas, Nadia, Murshidabad, Malda, Dakshin Dinajpur, Uttar Dinajpur, Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, and Cooch Behar. The India-Bangladesh border at Petrapole in North 24 Parganas district in April 2020. Photo: Partha PaulSaha submitted that there is a serious increase of crime in relation to narcotic drugs, infiltration, and other crimes. To bolster the argument, he pointed out that as per data in Lok Sabha, 1,547 persons were apprehended along the international border while attempting to infiltrate into West Bengal alone. The number rose to 1,694 in 2024 and was 723 till July 31, 2025.The petition pointed out that 4,988.282 kg of drugs and narcotics worth Rs 43,197.44 lakh was seized along the IBB in 2023, and 3,145.606 kg worth Rs 46,107.67 lakh in 2024.Also read | Dhaka is meeting India’s pragmatism with optimismSaha also gave the statistics about the seizure of fake currency notes, cattle, gold, etc. near the IBB in West Bengal. He added that the fencing is in national interest and is required to protect India’s integrity and sovereignty.Story continues below this adThe plea also gave the figures on the land for which the state government has already received compensation from the Centre but the entire land has not been handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF), which patrols the IBB. According to the plea, of a total of 198.252 km of land already acquired in the nine districts and for which the state had received payment from the Centre, only 70.925 km had been handed over to the BSF and 127.327 km remained.The Centre said that to expedite the land acquisition and handing over the land to the BSF, a series of meetings were held, which were attended by very senior level officers including Union Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary of the West Bengal government. It urged the court to issue directions to the state to expedite the transfer so that it can be fenced in order to curb cross border terrorism, infiltration, etc.The state opposed the prayer for interim direction but did not dispute that the fencing of the IBB is in national interest and necessary for the country’s defence. Among others, the state cited the engagement of its revenue officers in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) procedure for the delay in expediting the handing over process and acquisition/purchase of land.NewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeThen, on January 27, 2026, the High Court classified the land for fencing into three categories:Story continues below this adSuch pieces of lands, which have been acquired, compensation has already been received by the state government from the Central government but only partial portion of such land is handed over to BSF for fencing;Pieces of lands for which acquisition or purchase proceedings have been commenced under the direct purchase policy but could not be finalised and is stuck at different stages including the stage, where it is pending approval before the state government; andLands for which acquisition or purchase process is yet to start.As to the 198.252 km which fell in the first category, the court said that the reasons cited by the state “will not cut any ice”. It said: “This category of land needs to be handed over to the BSF at the earliest. The SIR procedure cannot, in our considered view, be an impediment for expediting this procedure and hand over these lands in nine districts.” The High Court set a March 31 deadline for transfer of the remaining 127.327 km.But in the hearing on April 22, the High Court noted that even after the March 31 deadline, only about 8 km out of the remaining 127.327 km had been handed over. It said “much more than the time desired (2/3 weeks) was granted to the State” but “no reason at all is furnished as to why the order of the court is not complied with”.The April 22 order said: “We deprecate the practice of filing such evasive and sketchy report and deem it appropriate to impose Rs.25,000/- as costs on the officer who has filed this sketchy report.” The court said that “the costs shall be paid by the officer who has filed report from his own pocket and it shall not be a burden on public exchequer”.The next hearing is scheduled for May 13, by which date the state has “to file a detailed affidavit informing the steps taken on day-to-day basis, district-wise in compliance of the” January 27 order.